Sehdev Singh vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD

THIS order shall dispose of R.P. Nos. 3327/07 and 3328/07 as the facts and the point of law involved in both Revision Petitions are the same except that in RP No. 3327/07, Petitioner had obtained a Janta Personal Accident Policy from the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 29.1.1998 for Rs. 5 lakh and in R.P. No. 3328/07 he had taken a life insurance policy for his wife, Snehlata for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh on 28.4.1997 from Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. Facts:

ON 27.3.1998, Petitioner while going on scooter with his wife, was waylaid by some miscreants who committed acts of dacoity due to which the wife of the Petitioner died on the spot and the complainant was injured. Brother of the Complainant lodged FIR with the Police Station, Adarsh Mandi, Tehsil Shamli, accusing him of murdering his wife. Police after investigation charged the Petitioner with murder and put him on trial. Prosecution ''s witnesses did not support the prosecution ''s case as a result of which the Petitioner was given benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charge of murder. After acquittal, Petitioner lodged the claim under the policy on 6.3.2005 which was repudiated on 22.8.2005. Aggrieved by the letter of repudiation, Petitioner filed the complaint in the District Forum. According to the Petitioner, he had initially lodged the claim on 8.5.1999 which was not settled. Subsequently he sent the representations on 7.3.2005, 20.6.2005 and 27.5.2005 which were repudiated on 22.8.2005.

RESPONDENTS in their written statements took preliminary objection that the complaint was barred by time. That the claim application dated 8.5.1999 was never received by them. That the claim application for the first time was received on 6.3.2005 only. The matter was investigated. Since the Petitioner had murdered his wife the claim was repudiated.

DISTRICT Forum came to the conclusion that the Petitioner had failed to prove that the claim application was moved for the first time on 8.5.1999. It was also held that the claim application for the first time was filed in March, 2005 followed by similar applications in the months of May and June, 2005 which were disposed of by the Respondent by their letter of repudiation dated 22.8.2005. District Forum dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation as the same was filed after seven years of arising of the cause of action. Since the insured died on 27.3.1998, the complaint as per Section 24 (A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 could be filed within two years from the date of arising of cause of action. In the present case, as the complaint was filed after lapse of seven years the same was barred by limitation. Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission. State Commission upheld and endorsed the finding of the District Forum.

COUNSEL for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner had initially filed the claim application on 8.5.1999 which was followed by subsequent representations of March, May and June, 2005. Claim was repudiated on 22.8.2005 and from the date of repudiation the complaint filed by the Petitioner was within limitation. That even if it is assumed that the Petitioner filed his claim for the first time in March, 2005 which was repudiated on 22.8.2005 even then the delay in filing the complaint was liable to be condoned as the Petitioner was under trial for murder of his wife in which he was acquitted on 21.2.2005. As against this, learned Counsel for the Respondent contends that the claim application was filed for the first time in March, 2005 and not on 8.5.1999. That claim application dated 8.5.1999 was never received in the office of the Respondent. That the complaint could be filed within two years from the arising of cause of action. Since in the present case, the complaint was filed after seven years of arising of cause of action, the same was barred by time. That the Petitioner did not move an application for condonation of delay. In the absence of application to condone the delay to show sufficient cause in filing the complaint, the delay cannot be condoned.

COUNSEL for the parties have been heard. District Forum has recorded the finding that there is no proof of the fact that the Petitioner had filed the claim application on 8.5.1999. Even before us, Counsel for the Petitioner could not substantiate that he had filed the application for the first time on 8.5.1999. Petitioner filed the claim application for the first time in March, 2005 which was repudiated by the Respondent after investigation on 22.8.2005. The plea taken by the Petitioner that the limitation starts running from 22.8.2005,i.e. date of repudiation of the claim, cannot be accepted as the claim petition itself was filed for the first time in March, 2005. In the present case, cause of action had arisen to the Petitioner soon after the death of his wife. Petitioner did not file the complaint within two years of arising of cause of action. Section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act which prescribes the limitation of two years from the date of cause of action reads as under: 24A. Limitation period -(1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in Sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period: Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

Interpreting this provision, Supreme Court in a recent judgment in State Bank of India v. B.S. Agriculture Industries, II (2009) CPJ 29 (SC)=II (2009) SLT 793, has held that the expression, ''shall not admit a complaint '' occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the Consumer Forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation; that it is the duty of the Consumer Fora to take notice of Section 24A and go into the fact if the complaint is barred by time and yet the Consumer Fora decides the complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside. Para 8 of the judgment of Supreme Court reads as under: "8. It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires Consumer Forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The Consumer Forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, ''shall not admit a complaint '' occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the Consumer Forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of Section 24A and given effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside. "

ADMITTEDLY , Petitioner did not file the application seeking condonation of delay. The delay can be condoned only on showing sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within time. There is no evidence on record as to on which date the Petitioner was arrested in the criminal case by the Police and as to whether he remained on bail or in jail during trial. Since no application showing the sufficient cause was filed, the delay in filing the complaint could not be condoned. We agree with the view taken by the Fora below that the complaint filed by the Petitioner was barred by limitation. Dismissed. Ordered accordingly.